https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286974 The second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held to be a valid substantive charging provision, because sections 3, 4, 2(6A) and the proviso operated together to deem specified gains on sale of depreciable assets as income. The form of the proviso did not prevent it from creating liability where legislative intent was clear. Gains realised on the sale of depreciable assets, to the extent of past depreciation allowed, were also held not to be casual or non-recurring receipts, so they did not qualify for exemption under section 4(3)(vii). en-us Mon, 08 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:36:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286974 The second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held to be a valid substantive charging provision, because sections 3, 4, 2(6A) and the proviso operated together to deem specified gains on sale of depreciable assets as income. The form of the proviso did not prevent it from creating liability where legislative intent was clear. Gains realised on the sale of depreciable assets, to the extent of past depreciation allowed, were also held not to be casual or non-recurring receipts, so they did not qualify for exemption under section 4(3)(vii). Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286974